Archive for April, 2010

To explain the geologic record, Creationists read the Biblical story of Noah and the flood into the evidence. They look at the fossil record and reason that these are creatures that just didn’t make it in the Ark and perished when the flood waters overtook them. The story of Noah is one of the most famous stories in the Bible, and gives a lesson about renewal of the old. But Young-Earth Creationists propose that Noah is more than myth: He is real, historical person, and that his flood covered the entire planet.

I will not argue against the existence of Noah as a historical person. Personally, I have no reason to believe that he didn’t exist, being a Christian. But what I will argue against is that the flood covered the entire planet since I believe the evidence in the geologic record points against it. — And I have yet more reasons than just geology to suspect the flood was a “local” event, and not universal which I will focus on in this post.

The reason why YECs insist on a global flood is because their model demands it. It is supposed to account for the fossil record, and it is based on their interpretation of the story found in the book of Genesis. There are also some “hard” atheists that use the same arguments against the idea that Genesis allows for a local flood in an attempt to say that acceptance of an old earth or Evolution is incompatible with Christianity. My personal assessment of the claims made by both groups is that they are wrong and misguided. In fact, I think the reading of a “local” flood in Genesis is not only plausible, but also Biblical.

The basic Biblical support that Creationists have for a global flood is the universal language which is used in the Genesis account:

I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. (Genesis 6: 17)

Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made. (Genesis 7: 4)

The language from these verses is most definitely universal, so it is no wonder that modern readers, Creationists and “hard” atheists alike, understand the “global” deluge as the only viable interpretation of the flood account. — Notice my stress on the term “modern readers.” — Though somewhat convincing at first glance, universal language is hardly an indicator that the Biblical account was intended to teach that the planet as a whole was covered in water. Such usages of the term “All under heaven” have been used to describe geographically limited areas. For example, during the time of the Roman Empire, the Romans claimed to rule the “whole earth.” Also, In ancient China, the domain of the emperor was said to be “all under heaven,” but obviously this only applied to China and neighboring states, and not to nations far out its reach.

In fact, the Bible itself uses this universal term in geographically limited contexts as well. For example, Acts 2: 5 says, “Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.” — Obviously, “all under heaven” does not mean the entire planet. It most certainly does not include other regions like North America, Japan, as well as China and Korea. These terms were simply a way of expressing one’s self in ancient times, and they didn’t have the same meaning as they do today.

Another detail to take into account is the Hebrew word for “Earth” which is אֶרֶץ (pronounced as “eretz”) which is used in the flood story. — Though this word can be understood and the entire planet, it also has several other meanings like ground, soil, land, country, territory, district, and region. Most of these can actually be substituted for “Earth,” showing that the flood can be understood as covering a local region or territory.

A couple of Atheist and Creationist rebuttals to the “local” flood that I read object on the basis that the flood story says that the mountains were covered,

The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. (Genesis 7: 18: 20 )

Certainly this could falsify the local flood, right? — Wrong! Objections made of the basis that the waters covered the “mountains” are only dependent on English literalism which is not a legitimate reading of the Bible if the word in the original language can be understood differently. — The Hebrew word for “mountains” is הַר (pronounced as “Har”) which also means hill or even hill country. So the passage can simply be understood as saying that the flood waters elevated over the hills by over twenty feet.

Granted, this information doesn’t prove that global flood isn’t what the writers of Genesis intended to write about. It only shows that a local flood is a legitimate understanding from the Biblical text. — If we left it all here, we would think that both interpretations, though different from each other, are harmonious with the Bible itself, but I have no intention of leaving it to that. It is my contention that the global flood is unbiblical, not just simply irrational. — Now, is there any Biblical evidence to back me up? You bet there is! — One of the best pieces of evidence comes from the prelude to the flood story itself,

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6: 4)

The Nephilim were a race of pre-flood people. Some commentators blame them for the evil in the world which caused God to bring the flood. But notice that the story says they were “on the earth in those days — and also afterward.” This implies that not only wasn’t the flood sent to destroy this race of people, they survived the flood. They are mentioned to still be living in the time of Moses (Numbers 13: 33 ). This could only logically be true if the flood was a local event, and not global. — The one objection I ran across for this point is that the Nephilim that were around before the flood were probably not the same as those that existed afterwards. However, even if I grant that Numbers 13:33 is talking about an unrelated race, that doesn’t explain why Genesis 6:4 implies that pre-flood and post-flood Nephilim shared a common progeny as they are both associated with “the sons of God who went to the daughters of man” implying that they managed to survive the flood.

Then there is also the drainage of the flood. Genesis 8: 1 says that a wind was used to cause the waters to recede which would have been pointless if the flood were global because the water that got blown away would simply have been replaced my different water that wasn’t there previously. — Also, Noah is said to have sent a dove which returned with an olive leaf (Genesis 8: 11). This is also evidence against a global flood because the time allowed in the Bible for the recession of the waters would not allow an olive tree to have grown by then. Also, the salt water of the flood would have destroyed much of the plant life — even the olive trees, not to mention the terrestrial conditions on the earth wouldn’t have been suitable for plant growth for a while.

Interestingly enough, even the writings of Flavius Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, seem to give credence to a local flood when one reads between the lines. After his retelling of the flood, he mentions other historians which mention similar events, and then quotes Nicolaus of Damascus,

Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them; where he speaks thus: “Thereis a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote.” (Antiquities of the Jews 1: 94-94)

This is significant for two reasons: 1) Because Josephus believes that Nicolaus is describing the flood of Noah, and 2) he mentions that there were many that fled and were saved from the deluge, and he seemingly differentiates them from the passengers on the ark. This implies that these other non-Noachian survivors had different means of escape besides the Ark of Noah. This would only make sence in the light of a local flood, not a global one. — Also, it is notable that Josephus does not correct Nicolaus as to others escaping the flood besides the passengers on the ark, implying that he agrees with him. It would be out of character for Josephus to not correct him if he disagreed with him.

The idea of a local, non-global, flood has plenty of support. The original Hebrew shows that this particular understanding id viable, and the Bible itself confirms it by implying that other people (i.e., the Nephilim) survived it. That latter detail should surely be a stumbling block to anyone who believes in a global flood. However, it is not problematic if one embraces the local flood. — In fact, for these reasons, I consider the local flood the only viable understanding of the Genesis story, and that the “global” flood is not only irrational but also unbiblical.

Scientists have overwhelming evidence to demonstrate that Evolution is not only a theory, but also a fact. So considering that, how is it that Creationists seem to win the debates? — Of course, a Creationist may simply assume that the Creationist wins because the Evolutionist is wrong. But a better look at the subject shows that this isn’t the case at all. There are several reasons Creationists seem to carry the day, and none of them have anything to do with being on the right side. And there are several reasons why Scientists are reluctant to debate with Creationists, and it isn’t because they are on the “wrong” side either.

If you have studied Evolution and know the scientific method, then you will know how Evolution works — I hope, at least. Therefore, I would also hope that you would also be able to pick out arguments made by Creationists that are totally absurd, though they may seem reasonable to the lay person. I see this happen a lot in Kent Hovind debates. — I just watched one, and I found myself getting a headache when he made an illustration about the “evolution of silverware.” Knowing what was coming, I simply fast forwarded through that. In another video I saw, he debated Ben Waggoner from the University of Central Arkansas who, although he undoubtedly knew his stuff, was not prepared for the beating he received. — In fact, the only hostile audience that he had that I know about was when he spoke at Berkley University in which several students called him out.

A major important reason why Creationists seem to win debates is that they seem to usually debate in front of friendly audiences. In other words, most people in the audience have already decided that Evolutionary theory is false, and the reason they are there is to see the “lost” evolutionist get trounced by their champion. — Donald Prothero, a leading professor of Geology, described a time when he accepted a challenge to debate Duane Gish. In the end, during the questions and answers segment, he received several irrelevant and offensive questions such as “Are you going to hell?” or “Are you a sexual pervert?” The audience was not interested in the evidence, but only in seeing the Evolutionist get defeated. Ultimately, he decided not to debate Gish again since it was a waste of time.

Another reason is that Creationists tend to dominate the debate. They have better debating skills than most Scientists because they have more practice at it. Scientists are usually busy with research, so they don’t have as much time to go out and debate. — Creationists also tend to shoot out too much drivel in only a few seconds which is very difficult to refute as quickly as it gets said. And due to the formats and time limits of these debates, the poor scientist is not free to give an adequate answer.

Creationists shoot out arguments like “Life could not have originated by chance,” and “the big bang is false.” — The bull of Creationists using these arguments is that they are not part of Evolutionary theory, even though Creationists don’t seem to see the difference between Biology and Cosmology. These arguments are made to leave the impression that the Evolutionist has no basis for his acceptance of Biological Evolution, and that the theory of evolution is therefore nonsense or “stupid,” as Kent Hovind puts it. — Were I to debate a Creationist who brings these two subjects up, I would simply say “I am here to defend Evolution, not the Big Bang, and not Abiogenesis.”

On the occasions that I do talk with Creationists, I usually run into arguments made against strawman versions of evolution rather than the recognized theory at all. One of them is the idea that evolution “must” lead to increasing complexity, and that the Uniformitarian principle (of Geology, not of evolutionary biology) means that accumulation of all geologic layers was all done slowly with no exception. These arguments are common in the Young Earth Creationist community in particular, however they are based on false premises. Evolutionary theory does not make the prediction that everything has to become more complex, and the principle of uniformitarianism (which is Geology, not evolution) does not dictate that all layers took long periods of time to form.

There is also the fact that it is near impossible to give enough information about how evolution works in just one day. There are reasons why evolution related classes such as Biology and Physical Anthropology take whole semesters. It takes whole semesters to teach the basics of these classes. So the playing field for debates is hardly even at all.

Then there is the fact that Creationists tend to move the goal posts on the scientists. — Kent Hovind’s $250,000 challenge is a great example of this. His challenge pretty much says that even if we could produce evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang in the lab, it still wouldn’t count because we would still have to prove God had nothing to do with it. Considering that I am a Christian, and therefore believe in God, I see this as ludicrous. The requirements are so unreasonable, it is no wonder not many (if any) scientist has even bothered with this challenge. –Also when given antibacterial resistence as an example, he simply said that no matter what, that bacteria would still not be immune to a sledge-hammer, as if Evolutionary theory makes any such prediction.

Then when it comes to the fossil record, he says “Fossils can’t be used as evidence for evolution because you can’t prove they had any kids.” In other words, no evidence is good enough. Also, it demonstrates he has no understanding about why and how fossils are used. Nobody is saying that a particular fossil is our ancestor, but that it has traits we would expect of what a potential ancestor would have. Hovind was positioning himself in a way that he could be able to dismiss any and all evidence for that abominable theory that he despises so that he wouldn’t have to truly deal with it.

The final reason why Scientists don’t debate with Creationists is they just don’t think it’s worth it. — Richard Dawkins, for example, refused to debate with the Muslim Creationist Harun Yahya when he was challenged saying he didn’t want to give him status. — Also, Kenneth Miller, another top scientist described a time when he accepted a Creationist challenge and asked Steven Gould for help,

I called Steve up and then I explained to him that I was preparing for a debate with a scientific creationist. And I asked him if he could help me out with a couple of arguments. And to my amazement, he stopped me short. And he said, `Ken, I’d like to remain your friend. I’d like to be on good terms with you, but I don’t think it’s wise to debate these guys. I don’t think it’s appropriate to give them a platform for their misguided and misleading views. And if you’re going to debate this fellow, I won’t help you, I won’t provide any assistance, and I won’t even talk with you.’

The truth is, Scientists don’t want to debate Creationists simply because they don’t want to give Creationists status where status is not due. It is not because they are “wrong” and have no evidence to support their claims. It is that the playing field is hardly level which, by the way, also doesn’t make for a good debating forum when you have a whole audience that is intellectually hostile to the scientist. — Also, another reason why they may not want to debate with them is because it may create the impression that Evolutionary theory is controversal in the scientific community.

When I first began reading Creationist arguments, I ran across the claim that humans as well as all other species were deteriorating. — One well known Creation Scientist I read claimed that the first humans lived for several hundreds of years and were therefore superior to all humans alive today. And based on that reasoning, he claimed that we were “devolving,” not evolving — devolving since the time of Noah’s flood. My reading of Creationist and Intelligent Design lit is that for evolution to be true, everything has to lead to an improvement.

Joseph Mastropaolo, a Creation “scientist,” for example, talks about medical disabilities and harmful mutations saying that this argues against evolutionary theory. He says that if evolution were true, then there should be less mutations less disease.

From the medical literature, the evidence suggesting evolution is zero and the evidence suggesting the exact opposite, devolution, is more than 15,400. Obviously, evolution is the exact opposite of reality.

Just as a side note, Mastropaolo’s insistence that evolutionary theory makes the prediction that there should be less disease fails to take into account that the viruses and bacteria that are responsible for sickness and disabilities evolve as well, so the persistance of disease is perfectly consistent with evolution. — Also, he says,

If evolution is true, then we should observe a decrease in human mutations, medically designated human genetic disorders, over time according to one definition of evolution, change over time, and another definition, natural selection. [ . . . ] The actual data show that genetic disorders doubled every 13 years through the sixties, seventies and eighties. In the nineties, genetic disorders doubled in about half the time, every seven years.

How ’bout that? I guess for evolution to be true, harmful mutations and genetic defects should become less frequent as time goes on. This is quite an over-simplistic understanding of how evolution works. — I think I’m being too generous by even describing his description of the process as an “understanding” because that’s not how evolution works at all. It doesn’t ensure against more disabilities in the future, and it certainly never claimed to guarantee that the occurence of detrimental mutations would be reduced in the future.

Such claims and insinuations are common in Creationists literature. Their perception is that there is a certain requirement that there there is a dictated direction from the simple to the complex, and that anything that seemingly goes in the opposite “direction” is a refutation of evolutionary theory. — The idea of “devolution” is based on the common misconception that evolution is directionary, that is, that increasing complexity is a necessary outcome for evolutionary change. The truth is that evolution doesn’t dictate any such trend. It has no pre-ordained direction.

The idea of a “ladder” of progression was proposed by several, but notably by the French naturalist Jean Baptist de Lamarck who believed that the simplest life forms were on the bottom while the most complex forms (i.e., humans) were on the top. Charles Darwin, however, did not subscribe to Lamark’s ideas, considering them unreliable. In fact, by the time Darwin had appeared on the scene, the idea of a chain was losing it’s support, but Darwin was the one that ultimately demolished it. — He envisioned a tree with the branches dividing, and so on, though modern evolutionary theory is shown as more of a “bush.”

Rather than just adding, evolution often reduces as well. Tapeworms lose their guts, cavefish lose their eyes, and humans lose their appendix. The ancestors of these particular species had fully functioning versions of these particular organs, though the modern counterparts are either semi-functional or non functional. There is no reason why apparently “simple” creatures cannot have evolved from more complex ancestors, and there is reason why this would happen: If you don’t use it, you tend to lose it.

The claim that devolution occurs rather than evolution shows that Creationists either do not understand evolution, or they feel the need to redefine it so they can make it look like a pseudo-scientific absurdity. The reality is that ‘devolution’ is not a legitimate biological term. So far, I haven’t been able to find it in any science textbook. The only people who use the term tend to be just laypeople or Creationists.

As a final observation, talk about “devolution” and an evolutionary “ladder” actually causes a fundamental contradiction of another common Creationist fallacy: The claim that Darwinian Evolution is based on pure chance. If evolutionary theory dictates that organisms absolutely have to become more complex, then how could evolution be based on pure coincidence? Logically, you cannot accept both ideas. Though to be honest, Evolution isn’t based on pure chance: Though mutations are random occurences, Natural Selection is the exact opposite of chance.

The fact of the matter is, the concept of an “Evolutionary ladder” is an oxymoron. It has no place in modern biology, so if you hear anyone using such a term, you can be sure that person doesn’t understand evolutionary theory.

A while ago, I was reading a book entitled The Reluctant Mr. Darwin which gives details about the time that Darwin was developing his theory of Evolution. I was developing an interest in Darwin the man rather than just his theory of natural selection which was why I got the book in the first place. What happened was, a member of a certain church saw the book, and we got into a short discussion. After our really short discussion about Darwin and Evolution, he said to me “It’s a theory,” putting plenty of stress on “theory.” A lot of Creationists love to use the “Evolution is a theory” argument, apparently, because that semantics technicality gives them a justification to reject it all together.

The argument that evolution is just a theory is made on ignorance of the scientific method, or methodological naturalism. This is made up of several steps such as 1) observation, 2) hypothesis, 3) testing, 4) revision, and 5) theory. — Notice that hypothesis and theory are two separate steps in the scientific method. They layperson uses the two terms interchangeably. Not so in the scientific community.

Some of the mentioned steps of the scientific method are self-explanatory, but it works like this: A hypothesis is used to explain a certain observation in nature. The hypothesis is used to make a prediction, that is, if the hypothesis predicts that X should happen, and it does, then it has support. However, you need to keep testing the hypothesis against other predictions that it makes, and if it does not pass them, then it needs to be revised. On the other hand, if it passes every test given, then it becomes a theory. — To a scientist, a theory is well supported by the evidence. It is not just a hair-brained idea that was just dreamed up. Indeed, scientific “theories” are described “proven hypothesis” and are more like scientific laws.

From this, to say that evolution is “just a theory,” Creationists are unwittingly saying Evolution is well substantiated and tested. Evolution, therefore, is only a “proven hypothesis,” it is only as useful as a scientific law. When Creationists argue along these lines, they are crossing definitions of the same term which is really not a valid line of argument. Indeed, pulling out the “it’s only a theory” card is nothing more than semantics.

Casey Luskin, who is a well-know Intelligent Design proponent at the Discovery Institute in an essay he wrote on the subject recommends against resorting to calling evolution a theory because it can imply to Evolutionists that the Creationist/ID proponent cannot cite evidence against it. — He then points out,

The “evolution is just a theory” line can come off as if the speaker really thinks “evolution is just a guess, so I don’t have to believe it if I don’t want to.” In fact, neo-Darwinian evolution as a whole is not merely a guess and most Darwinian scientists will provide reasons why they think it is the best explanation for the diversification of life.

I agree very little with Casey Luskin, but he cannot be more right in this case. When this argument is used, the implication is since evolution is a theory, there is an excuse to simply dismiss it purely our of convenience. — “It’s convenient for me, therefore I will reject it. It’s a theory, not a fact.” — Under this logic, we could dismiss other scientific theories such as germ theory, plate tectonics, the big bang, general relativity, and also gravitation. All of these are theories, and yet they have been verified by the data against observations that very well could have falsified them. — And that’s part of science right there. In order to become a theory, the proposal has to make prediction that can be falsified if it’s wrong. If later observations go against the proposal, then it has been falsified. If not, it has been verified, and it moves into becoming a scientific theory.

Considering that Evolution has been tested by these predictions, and even others, common descent is just as much a legitimate part of science as any other scientific theory. And this is despite the claim made by some creationists that evolution doesn’t even meet the standard of a respectable hypothesis. In fact, there is a lot more evidence for evolution than what I have mentioned here. — The fact that there were discoveries that could have been able to falsify evolution, and that it has been verified, shows that it is more than just a hypothesis.

Having been raised in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, I grew up hearing the theory of Darwinian Evolution often scorned as an atheistic rationality against God. I was raised to believe that the earth was no more than 6,000 years old and that therefore “we didn’t come monkeys.” In fact, the SDA church is the source for the modern YEC movement. Young Earth Creationism was a requirement for me when I was baptized into the church and officially became a member.

As I went to private schools run by the church, we were often indoctrinated into Creationism. I remember in my sixth grade science book, the flood of Noah was used as an explanation for geological formation, and that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, and that humans were individually created separately from apes. — Ironically, the same textbooks classified humans as primates along with monkeys and apes. — However, despite all the Creationist indoctrination i was put through, little by little, I began losing faith in a Young Earth.

I began using common sence to determine that the earth and universe was much older than 6,000. It was basically all because of starlight and light speed. I reasoned that if light took millions of years to reach us here on earth, then the universe had to be older. — However, I still didn’t consider Carbon-14 and other dating methods because I was taught all my life that they were inaccurate. I then revised the belief in the creation week into long ages much like progressive creationists though I had no idea progressive creationists existed. I then also concluded that the flood of Noah was a local event because it was the only explanation that seemed to make sense. Certainly this would be acceptable, wouldn’t it?

A recently as the summer of 2008, I had stayed away from evolution thinking that there was no reason to accept it, or rather “to believe” in it. Finally, in all my ignorance of evolutionary theory, I left a comment on a blog that talked about Evolution being “both theory and fact.” — I ignorantly commented that Evolution was only a hypothesis, and nothing more, but that I accepted an old earth. This then drew other comments calling me ignorant . . . and I was. I had no real response.

I then decided to look up what scientists said about Evolution. I was then troubled by all the support that it enjoyed in the scientific community. The fossil and genetic evidence I ran across bothered me, and the YEC apologetics I found online didn’t give me any comfort. The most convincing Creationist I read online was Harun Yahya, but I think that was only because he was not a YEC. He accepts the old age of the earth. As a result, I took more comfort in his works than I did from organizations like Answers in Genesis and the Insitute for Creation Research, though this isn’t to say I never read up on them.

In short, I did everything possible to avoid accepting that Evolution could possibly be true for the next full year. After all, I thought that if Evolution were true, then that would inherently mean that God was not our creator. I began reading Micheal Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box and Harun Yahya’s The Evolution Deceit, and used the arguments in those books against Evolution. I then was countered by even better arguments against those given in those particular books.

By July of 2009, I was finally losing what little faith in Creationism I still had. Though in the early part of that month, I was still an Old-Earth Creationist, my comments about Evolution became less and less dogmatic. I finally made statements like “I am a Creationist, but Evolution may in fact be true.” — What finally got rid of any doubt of harmonizing God and Evolution was a short three video series I randomly found on YouTube which beautifully ( and it can be watched by clicking here.) For at least a couple of days after this, I considered the points made, and I finally decided to do more investigation about the topic. By investigation, I mean unbiased with no preconceptions. This research fully convinced me that Evolution was indeed a scientific fact, and that God was fully in harmony with Science.